small fry

Members
  • Content Count

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

small fry last won the day on February 10 2017

small fry had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

84 Excellent

About small fry

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Profile Fields

  • Location
    CA

Recent Profile Visitors

834 profile views
  1. If the plaintiff's attorney has time to read your brief and objections prior to trial, they will likely consider dismissing. If they don't have time, or if they are disorganized and unaware of the filing, then plaintiff's attorney may show up at trial and bluff their way through it with some simple arguments. Be sure to include a copy of Midland Funding v Romero (from the Orange County Appellate Division) in your trial brief and with your objections to their Declaration in Lieu.
  2. If this case were my mine, I would file a Notice of Appeal within the 30 day window following entry of the trial court judgment. Instructions for filing an Appeal in a Civil Limited case are here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/app101info.pdf Its disappointing, although not a complete surprise that Beekeeper's trial court was unfamiliar with the relevance of Sierra v. Hale or Midland v. Romero (even though they should be familiar with both). But the Appellate Panel overseeing the trial court's decisions will certainly need to know and consider both decisions carefully.
  3. Yes, Ian Chowdhury - who along with the equally esteemed Calawyer, continue to do so much to protect and advance consumers legal rights here in California. We are fortunate to be able to benefit from their tireless efforts, dedication, and professionalism. Just a couple of great guys. We wish them well this holiday season!
  4. California consumers may find it helpful to be aware of another favorable Opinion recently certified for publication by the CA Courts: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/JAD16-06.PDF Happy Holidays!
  5. More info pertaining to Midland specifically is here: www.midlandcfpbsettlement.com Click on the Frequently Asked Questions page.
  6. Ugly. Well, I see the opinion states the Court received request for publication, after its initial ruling affirming judgement for the Plaintiff. So, whom may request publication of an Appellate ruling, in order to make it citable? Is it only parties to the suit? And how much time is allowed to file such a request for publication? A certain (fairly recent) Appellate ruling in San Diego, were it published and citable, would be another helpful counter balance to this unfortunate one. Hint, hint.
  7. "Sierra Managed Asset Plan v. Hale, (2015)_ Cal. App. 4th_, 2015" is the cite for the time being. Because it's so recent, you'll want to print out copies, and attach them to your documents as exhibits. By the way, if you go to trial, try to find plaintiff's attorney before your case is called. Make sure they have seen your objections and trial brief. They may be unaware of your filings with the court. Give them copies if they have none. They may decide to dismiss the case once they see you are well prepared.
  8. Here is the recent opinion, mentioned in other threads, from the Appellate Division of Ventura County Superior Court. This one is certified for publication. This is a very good read. Sierra Managed Asset Plan, LLC. v. Hale (2015) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2015 WL 5432647: The Superior Court Appellate division reversed a limited civil collection case judgment for plaintiff. The Appellate Division concluded that the trial court erred in admitting exhibits attached to a declaration, because the declarant had failed to satisfy the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. (Co
  9. Thanks. I think reading the decision in this case can help one in clarifying and better understand one's arguments. As Calawyer recently noted: "Even if you fail to serve a subpoena on the witness most of the testimony in a typical CCP 98 affidavit, and most of the documents attached as exhibits, should NOT be admissible at trial IF YOU OBJECT. This is because CCP 98 itself says, "To the extent the contents of the prepared testimony would have been admissible were the witness to testify orally thereto, the prepared testimony shall be received as evidence in the case..." Most CCP 98 declar
  10. Yes, this is the big news that anyone recently sued by PRA or Midland should be reading. If you are currently or were recently in litigation with either of them, be sure to download and read the consent orders here: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/administrativeadjudication/
  11. This is HUGE. Yes, this absolutely will benefit many CIC members sued by Midland and PRA. If that's you, be sure to download and read the Consent Order dated last Thursday, Sept. 3rd. Great news for consumers.
  12. http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/unreported/midland-v-edwards-12132013.pdf The Sonoma Appellate Division's decision in this case is a good read. Particularly in regards to CA CCP Sec.98 and the Declaration in Lieu of Testimony with attached documentary exhibits regularly filed by Midland and the other JDB's here.
  13. Since the decision of the Apellate Division in @easy619 case is so helpful regarding the testimony typically provided by Midland's witness, it would be great for those of us going to trial to be able to properly cite it, at this point, prior to its publication. San Diego Law Library advises "if you cite an unpublished decision, even one that is going to be published but is, as yet, available only in a computer database such as Westlaw or Lexis or in the Daily Appellate Reports, you must attach copies of the opinion to briefs that you file with the court and serve on any other parties. Californ
  14. Excellent and interesting reading. So, Midland failed to satisfy the CACI for Account Stated claims due to insufficient evidence of any expressed or implied agreement between you and Midland. In your case, Midland actually mailed their two initial notices of purchase to someone else's address, and thereby you were not able to even implicitly acknowledge the debt. And evidence code 1721 (the business records exemption to hearsay) could not correctly be applied with plaintiff's witness giving incompetent testimony: Q: Have you ever worked for CHASE BANK NA? A: No. Q: Just to be clear,